It's Official: No WMDs in Iraq.

[Skywarp! 0]

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=stor...a2129_2005jan11

 

Who didn't see this coming, huh?

[Jingus 0]

Four months after Charles A. Duelfer, who led the weapons hunt in 2004, submitted an interim report to Congress that contradicted nearly every prewar assertion about Iraq made by top Bush administration officials...

 

...possibility that weapons were moved out of Iraq before the war or are well hidden somewhere inside the country. But the intelligence official said that possibility is very small.

 

Intelligence officials said there is little left for the ISG to investigate because Duelfer's last report answered as many outstanding questions as possible. The ISG has interviewed every person it could find connected to programs that ended more than 10 years ago, and every suspected site within Iraq has been fully searched...

 

Satellite photos show that entire facilities have been dismantled...

 

"We've talked to so many people that someone would have said something. We received nothing that contradicts the picture we've put forward. It's possible there is a supply someplace, but what is much more likely is that [as time goes by] we will find a greater substantiation of the picture that we've already put forward."

 

None of the scientists has been involved in weapons programs since the 1991 Gulf War, the ISG determined more than a year ago, and all have cooperated with investigators despite nearly two years of jail time without charges...

 

So can we PLEASE drop the entire "Saddam had WMDs!" bullshit excuse for the war?

[Guest Smell the ratings!!!]

what the hell kinda news is this, this report came out in September.

[2GOLD 0]

I never thought about the WMDs as a reason to invade Iraq anyway. That was issue 39 on my list.

 

I'm more pissed off we botched the invasion and didn't put a bullet in Saddam's head than anything.

 

The WMDs? Didn't care then and I don't care now.

[Your Paragon of Virtue 0]

I never thought about the WMDs as a reason to invade Iraq anyway. That was issue 39 on my list.

 

I'm more pissed off we botched the invasion and didn't put a bullet in Saddam's head than anything.

 

The WMDs? Didn't care then and I don't care now.

The point is that was the main justification for the war.

 

It's been proven to not be a good reason at this point, and the whole excuse of "Well they might have it, better shoot first find WMD's later" should be thrown away.

 

But hey, I'm sure that alot of people will STILL ignore this because lying and false evidence is a-okay.

[Guest Failed Mascot]

I still say this war was built on gaining oil and because they fucked up so badly with the whole Osama Bin Laden thing. Thus they went after somebody they felt the public would completely support them in going after.

[Jingus 0]

The WMDs claim has always been my biggest problem with the war. I think it was a flimsy excuse at best, and pure lying bullshit at worst. There's never been enough evidence to back this claim, yet it was dragged out again and again as justification for the invasion. And I think that going into Iraq and removing Saddam from power was a GOOD thing. Saddam's constant and consistent human rights violations and blatant disregard for UN regulations should've been reason enough; instead, we kept insisting that the WMDs were a clear and present danger, and now we all look like fucking idiots because of it.

 

EDIT: no, for the hundredth time, it wasn't about the oil. We've spent billions of dollars to tear down and rebuild the entire country. Even if Iraq gave us their entire oil output for free from now on (which certainly won't happen), it'd be several years before we made it all back.

[Spicy McHaggis 0]

Define lie.

[Sass 0]

I only accepted the WMD deal because of the nuke dissassembling agreement that was supposed to be carred out after the first war in Iraq. For years, it had been reported how WMD parts and scuds had been found around in Iraq along with stringing along the UN during inspections. I think everyone knew that Saddam was an evil dictator so he was a separate issue I thought. But then the WMD labs were not found. Then there were reports about how there were labs but how they had been transferred to some other disclosed areas. Oh, and then there were reports about how there were never any WMD's to begin with and *then* the Iraq Invasion started to be started over taking Saddam out of office and "liberating" the Iraqi people. Then the war was put on a trial by a "commission" and then we insulted *everyone's* intelligence a little bit more by concluding that the war was without just cause.

 

My head was beginning to ache.

 

After a while, I lost track of why the US had invaded Iraq and then I just stopped caring. All I know is that the bed has been made and now everyone must sleep it in.

[cbacon 0]

War Crimes:

 

“an indiscriminate attack affecting the civilian population or civilian objects and resulting in excessive loss of life, injury to civilians or damage to civilian objects is a grave breach of the Geneva Conventions. ( Protocol I, Art. 85, Sec. 3)”

 

That said, Bush should be impeached. To all Bush apologists, what justifications are left for this war?

[Highland 0]

War Crimes:

 

“an indiscriminate attack affecting the civilian population or civilian objects and resulting in excessive loss of life, injury to civilians or damage to civilian objects is a grave breach of the Geneva Conventions. ( Protocol I, Art. 85, Sec. 3)”

 

That said, Saddam should be impeached. To all Saddam apologists, what justifications are left for not going through with this war?

[cbacon 0]

War Crimes:

 

“an indiscriminate attack affecting the civilian population or civilian objects and resulting in excessive loss of life, injury to civilians or damage to civilian objects is a grave breach of the Geneva Conventions. ( Protocol I, Art. 85, Sec. 3)”

 

That said, Saddam should be impeached. To all Saddam apologists, what justifications are left for not going through with this war?

 

 

If going to war to remove a brutal dictator is the reason (which was merely an after thought during the whole OMG WMD HE"S GONNA KILLS ALL!!! fiasco ), then the US have a long list of dictators to remove, including one's that they deal with.

 

Given the situation now, where ten's of thousands of lives have been lost, I wouldn't say Iraqi's are better off now

[Justice 0]

War Crimes:

 

“an indiscriminate attack affecting the civilian population or civilian objects and resulting in excessive loss of life, injury to civilians or damage to civilian objects is a grave breach of the Geneva Conventions. ( Protocol I, Art. 85, Sec. 3)”

 

That said, Saddam should be impeached. To all Saddam apologists, what justifications are left for not going through with this war?

 

 

If going to war to remove a brutal dictator is the reason (which was merely an after thought during the whole OMG WMD HE"S GONNA KILLS ALL!!! fiasco ), then the US have a long list of dictators to remove, including one's that they deal with.

 

Given the situation now, where ten's of thousands of lives have been lost, I wouldn't say Iraqi's are better off now

Apparently we are supposed to invade every dictatorship within a 2 year period. I guess that's part of the contract or something.

 

And, to note, that isn't a reason against taking Saddam out of power. It's a nice diversion, but give us an explanation why Saddam should have stayed in power.

[Dr. Tyler; Captain America 0]

He shouldn't have. However, we're also not even really pushing for any of these other dictators to be invaded, etc.

 

Example: The Saudi Royal Family.

[Justice 0]

He shouldn't have. However, we're also not even really pushing for any of these other dictators to be invaded, etc.

 

Example: The Saudi Royal Family.

I'll give you the point that we aren't putting as much pressure as we could, but at the moment, do you really think it would be a good idea to invade another dictatorship? While our armed forces could probably deal, I don't think they honestly should have to.

 

And as to Saudi Arabia: We can't feasibly invade there. People bitch about how we are giving a reason for them to commit acts against us, how do you think it would be viewed if we invaded the holiest of all places in Islamic faith? Hell, isn't it against Islamic law to let nonbelievers even ENTER Mecca? The only way we can change SA is to put political and cultural pressure by changing the surrounding Muslim world. Asking us why we don't invade there is just a strawman.

[Dr. Tyler; Captain America 0]

I'm not talking about feasibility. If you want to argue that Iraq was the most "feasible" country to invade, I'd argue that feasibility is a poor reason to invade a country.

 

The problem with arguing that we need to eliminate Saddam NOW@!~@$%#@@ is that then, you have to get into why in the hell it was Saddam and not, say, the Saudi Royal family or Castro or whichever other dictators there are out there. The fact that you simply repeat "BUT WHY WOULDN'T WE GET RID OF SADDAM!?!" after I make that argument doesn't change the fact that, quite obviously, it wasn't urgent that we rush into Iraq just so we can get rid of a HORRIBLE DIRCATRO when there's quite a few other ones that we tolerate.

[Red Baron 0]

I'm sure Saddam is far worse than Kim Il Jon.

[Dr. Tyler; Captain America 0]

But not his little brother, Lil' Kim Jon!

[CheesalaIsGood 0]

Least now you know why MikeSC isn't around anymore..

[Red Baron 0]

But not his little brother, Lil' Kim Jon!

I think I've heard of him before?

 

Didn't he get shot like five times?

[Gary Floyd 0]

So can we PLEASE drop the entire "Saddam had WMDs!" bullshit excuse for the war?

I don't know. They'll probably try telling us he had them, but traded them. And of course, it will divide the nation, just like everything seems to these days

[Big Ol' Smitty 0]

The WMDs claim has always been my biggest problem with the war. I think it was a flimsy excuse at best, and pure lying bullshit at worst. There's never been enough evidence to back this claim, yet it was dragged out again and again as justification for the invasion. And I think that going into Iraq and removing Saddam from power was a GOOD thing. Saddam's constant and consistent human rights violations and blatant disregard for UN regulations should've been reason enough; instead, we kept insisting that the WMDs were a clear and present danger, and now we all look like fucking idiots because of it.

I agree with all this.

[Big Ol' Smitty 0]

I'll give you the point that we aren't putting as much pressure as we could

 

That's the understatement of the century.

 

And as to Saudi Arabia: We can't feasibly invade there. People bitch about how we are giving a reason for them to commit acts against us, how do you think it would be viewed if we invaded the holiest of all places in Islamic faith? Hell, isn't it against Islamic law to let nonbelievers even ENTER Mecca? The only way we can change SA is to put political and cultural pressure by changing the surrounding Muslim world. Asking us why we don't invade there is just a strawman.

 

Yeah, so far we're of to a great start and putting tons of pressure on 'em.

[Big Ol' Smitty 0]

EDIT: no, for the hundredth time, it wasn't about the oil. We've spent billions of dollars to tear down and rebuild the entire country. Even if Iraq gave us their entire oil output for free from now on (which certainly won't happen), it'd be several years before we made it all back.

I've said it before and I'll say it again: if you think the country with the world's highest (and ever-growing) demand for oil invading the country with the world's second largest oil reserves had nothing to do with said oil, then I've got some prime real estate in the Sunni triangle to sell you.

[Guest INXS]

An unecessary war based on lies in order to gain control of Iraq's resources. It seems that every day more and more people are waking up and realizing that they were lied to about the invasion and seeing it for what it is.

[Jingus 0]

Once again: if the Iraq war was a grab for oil, then it was a VERY poorly executed one, as it would take YEARS and YEARS for the US to steal enough of it to simply break even on this war.

[Big Ol' Smitty 0]

Once again: if the Iraq war was a grab for oil, then it was a VERY poorly executed one, as it would take YEARS and YEARS for the US to steal enough of it to simply break even on this war.

That's a really simplistic way to look at it.

 

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article....RTICLE_ID=33642

 

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article3535.htm

 

http://www.ratical.org/ratville/CAH/RRiraqWar.html

 

Although completely unreported by the U.S. media and government, the answer to the Iraq enigma is simple yet shocking -- it is in large part an oil currency war. One of the core reasons for this upcoming war is this administration's goal of preventing further Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC) momentum towards the euro as an oil transaction currency standard. However, in order to pre-empt OPEC, they need to gain geo-strategic control of Iraq along with its 2nd largest proven oil reserves. The second coalescing factor that is driving the Iraq war is the quiet acknowledgement by respected oil geologists and possibly this administration is the impending phenomenon known as Global "Peak Oil." This is projected to occur around 2010, with Iraq and Saudi Arabia being the final two nations to reach peak oil production.

 

More on peak oil.

[Red Baron 0]

It's the only reason why I didn't support the war.

 

If Bush said that he was going into Iraw to remove a threat to society, I'd agree with him.

[Guest Loss]

Bush should not be impeached. I am against the war as well, but Bush merely acted on faulty intelligence. An investigation should take place, no doubt, because I do have my suspicions that Bush was pressuring people to find a reason to justify going into Iraq, but there was documented evidence (as wrong as it was) to show that we should have invaded Iraq. He even had the backing of both houses. My problem has been that once we discovered that there were no WMD's and also once it started being stated publicly on a regular basis that Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11, Bush should have stepped forward and given an estimated time table to pull out the troops. Now, he should definitely do so. I realize that his focus right now is more on tsunami relief, which is great, but he needs to come forward with a plan very soon.

[Zorin Industries 0]

He shouldn't have. However, we're also not even really pushing for any of these other dictators to be invaded, etc.

 

Example: The Saudi Royal Family.

I'll give you the point that we aren't putting as much pressure as we could, but at the moment, do you really think it would be a good idea to invade another dictatorship? While our armed forces could probably deal, I don't think they honestly should have to.

 

And as to Saudi Arabia: We can't feasibly invade there. People bitch about how we are giving a reason for them to commit acts against us, how do you think it would be viewed if we invaded the holiest of all places in Islamic faith? Hell, isn't it against Islamic law to let nonbelievers even ENTER Mecca? The only way we can change SA is to put political and cultural pressure by changing the surrounding Muslim world. Asking us why we don't invade there is just a strawman.

I'd give Uzbekistan as a better example, the human rights record there has been criticised but money is still being given to them because of there strategic location